It's defensive armament was massive, but it's performance was lacklustre. More importantly there were serious gaps in its weapon arcs. More isn't always better, there were more efficient designs in the Allied inventory.

Just a thought. Four T-bolts could bring 10,000lbs of ordinance to a target 400 miles away, and drop it with pin-point accuracy. A Fort could only manage 8,000lbs the same distance. The differance is that strategic bombers often failed to hit a target 1000yds accross, even on 'successful' missions. In Dresden, after three days and nights of intense bombardment, neither the synthetic oil works at Liepzig nor the marshalling yards in the Friedrichstadt district, both large, obvious complexes and stated as primary targets for the raids, suffered a single hit. In fact, the closest any bomb landed to the marshalling yards was almost three miles away!

Never thought of it that way...being a t-bolt fan i really like that idea!

I voted for the B-17 because it had a long range, could sustain large amounts of damage, and bristled with guns. There is no wonder why it was called a Flying Fortress.

The Lancaster was on par with the Fortress as it could carry a very large bomb load as could the B-17 but it didn't have the defensive firepower or armor of the latter.

The Liberator had a longer range than the B-17, could carry a slightly larger number of bombs, was faster, and had a respectable number of gunners (but still not as many as a Flying Fortress), but its armor was weak especially around the wing roots and inner engines where its wing fuel reserves were located. A single hit in that area of the bomber could spell disaster, igniting the fuel tanks and bringing the lumbering Liberator down.

And the Halifax could also carry a heavy bomb load and was just as fast as the B-17, but had a much lower service ceiling and range.

The B-17 also had the highest service ceiling of any of its allied contemporaries, and it could also operate adequately after losing an engine.

I'd say the other three candidates are not far behind, however, and any one of them would be a good choice.

I think for me it would be the Avro Lancaster ,reason being it had a greater bomb capacity,able to deliver deadly pay loads,I don't think I would have used it in day light raids ,although better than the Halifax in my opinion,the lanc was in a league of its own,Its Brownings and 20mm cannon were adequate enough to give it an edge .Daylight raids however it would have to be the B17 Fortress,although didn't have the bomb capacity like the lanc, It was very robust,rugged,could take considerable battle damage, fitted with a nordon
bomb sight could accurately hit its targets from high altitude,the B17s defensive armament gave it a formidable edge against German fighters.However the B17suffered heavy loses until the introduction of long range escort fighters ,my choice would be either the P47/ Thunderbolt or the P 51 Mustang, both equally as good armed with 50 Calibre guns could easily out pace the 190s and 109s in my opinion.anyway those are my thoughts.thanks for listening.
Regards keith.

Able to carry the same bomb-load as a B17 to Berlin. Could do two trips in the time it took a load of heavies to do one.

Used less fuel and probably cost less than half the going rate for any 4-engined bomber.

In 1943 the B-29 was not there. So I'm siding with sid on this one. I believe the Mosquito, if produced in the US to help get the numbers needed, could have been the answer. In December 1943 the Mustang B could have given escort. The two flying together at 320 mph. cruise for over 800 miles away would have been an awesome threat.

The lanc's escape hatches were too small. Ventral turret was removed, later replaced with H2S dome. Mid upper removed late in the war. Should have had 0.5" guns. Could have had a limited arc 0.5" ventral. Designers should have consulted RAF night fighters wrt attack tactics before determining gun positions and calibre.